AndeyHall
Active member
Referring to the 2nd paragraph of post #95...likewise.
Was it the music or the shotgun that caused Dunn to shoot Jordan?
- Thread starter nogods
- Start date
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Not "all" Junior, but unlike you, I never make declarative statements that I can't at least provide a reasonable basis for, if not outright prove beyond any doubt. As regards the aforementioned Supreme Court rulings, it took me less than 10 seconds of searching to find a storehouse with all of them listed in one place. Information from it will be forthcoming after I've confirmed that the rulings cited say what the compiler says they do, which I've already seen citations from most of them anyway and know they do, but again, unlike you, I prefer to do my own research to verify that what I'm claiming is validated straight from the horse's mouth (the "horse's mouth" would be the Supreme Court in this instance in case you're lost already).
Of course, taking my time in putting such a post together has the added advantage of seeing you make more uninformed claims about what authorities The People's Constitution grants you, which in turn, gives me more opportunities to expose you for the swine you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed into.
Oh, you definitely missed a thing or ten during your indoctrination sessions (what did they call it - training? HA! - fooled again Junior) on the Constitution, one of them being that you've been brainwashed to believe an amendment is required to define a fundamental right. Decidedly, one isn't. I will prove that statement, and I am confident you will ignore that proof because your masters have trained you not to recognize truth and/or natural rights that exist outside of your authority to trample on them. But it's good exercise for me in any case, and the chance always exists that you will have an awakening, so why not?
It's actually kind of rare that apvbguy and I are in such exact agreement about a subject, the subject being you and how much that shiny new badge has already gone to your head. He's doing his thing, and I'm doing mine. I think it's safe to say that he's not taking any leads from me. I'm certainly not doing anything but enjoying reading his replies to you.
Whatever, you can go slop in the swill for awhile. I'll be back later with the proof I promised. Feel free to make a further fool of yourself while I'm busy making sure I don't.
Blues
apvbguy
New member
oooops, I have just one last thing to say, this sums things up well
“Good Cop” Punished for Stepping in to Stop Fellow Cops From Beating a Mentally Ill Man | The Free Thought Project
“Good Cop” Punished for Stepping in to Stop Fellow Cops From Beating a Mentally Ill Man | The Free Thought Project
AndeyHall
Active member
What is it they say...if you want it done right, do it yourself? You can call it indoctrination all you want, but everything we/ I do is entirely Supreme Court backed. I am anxiously awaiting these rulings that state you have the right to drive your car and never have to show proof of a valid drivers license. The next time I'm stopped at a DUI checkpoint, I'm just gonna tell them to stick it and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Oh, that's right, all checkpoints have been ruled constitutional except drug checkpoints. That's not indoctrination, that's straight from the Supreme Court. These are things I learned long before law enforcement.
AndeyHall
Active member
Oh and about that driving like a granny thing...you should have become a cop. I've been pulled over twice since I've been hired and haven't gotten a ticket yet. You don't have to worry about how you drive!
apvbguy
New member
the corruption is deeply set in, early
AndeyHall
Active member
Hahahaha I found that button and knew exactly where to push!
...hook...line...and sinker!
apvbguy
New member
please read post #96
AndeyHall
Active member
I don't get what post #96 has anything to do with this...
apvbguy
New member
AndeyHall
Active member
Still don't get what it has to do with what I said.
apvbguy
New member
bingo, YOU DON'T GET IT
AndeyHall
Active member
You can say that all day long...that doesn't make it make sense.
apvbguy
New member
this is why you are the prototypical cop
is this you?
Link Removed
or is it this?
the reality is that it is most likely this
BluesStringer
Les Brers
On the right to drive, or typically referred to as the right to travel:
As I went looking for the cites I've seen on the subject, I found that many of them are either misrepresented, misconstrued, cited incorrectly for the information the person citing it was attempting to convey, and I also found at least one purported SCOTUS citation that cannot be found with the names given on Findlaw, Justia or Cornell (LII). So you guys posting citations about the right to drive, or the right to be free from licensing etc., need to do some more homework. Most of the cites that I followed from posts on this forum were bogus for what they purported to demonstrate. I said "Most," not "all."
I am only addressing the "right" vs. "privilege" to drive on public roads and highways here. I am not addressing licensing, registration, toll roads, insurance mandates, "rules of the road" regulation or any other side-issue that might arise from finding a *right* to drive as a valid concept.
The right to travel goes back as far as the Magna Carta. A SCOTUS Opinion in Kent v. Dulles states that thusly:
The Footnote is a working link to the Magna Carta cite which anyone can check for themselves.
The first line mentions the Fifth Amendment though, so obviously in 1958 SCOTUS was not ruling on common or ancient law. The right to travel is wrapped up in the Declaration of Independence mention of the right of all men to "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The right to travel is well-established as a fundamental right of all human beings throughout this country's history, and while typically court rulings are concerning interstate and international travel, the right to travel has never been in question by any court, no matter the mode of travel. Driving a vehicle is a "mode" of travel.
Anyone asserting that driving is a privilege simply by virtue of it being a modern mode of travel would have to likewise say that the ownership of a revolver is a privilege by virtue of flintlocks being what the 2A was meant to protect. Conversely, anyone who asserts that revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions or semi-auto pistols and rifles are a natural progression from the flintlocks of the founding era days would have to likewise understand that motor-driven vehicles are a natural progression from the horse and buggy, and are every bit as much protected as a right to use as a conveyance to travel as modern weapons are in the right to keep and bear.
Before someone jumps to tell me I'm wrong because Kent was about a passport denial, save it. What I quoted is about travel, described as a right by SCOTUS, the denial of which was prohibited in the Opinion by the 5th Amendment. None of that paragraph is limited in scope to the particular case being heard. It was a general observation by the Court of a natural right going at least as far back in common law as the Magna Carta, used as the underlying foundation of its ruling in prohibiting the Secretary of State from denying a passport to a citizen on the basis of their political beliefs, and further underpinned that natural right with the articulated protections under the 5th Amendment. The right to travel is not modified or otherwise made invalid by the details of issues being resolved in Kent. The right to travel simply is.
Another case, this time Shachtman vs. Dulles (yes, the same Dulles - he obviously had hard time staying out of court). That Court found, among other things:
There is no basis under which someone could claim now that the courts have held that travel is anything approaching a "privilege," no matter the mode of travel as the phrase, "as the means of transportation permit" proves, unless of course you have cites to rulings or opinions that supersede or otherwise overrule just these two that I have provided. There are others too, BTW.
One can argue the legalities of, constitutionality of, or prudence of DUI checkpoints in light of the "reasonable regulation under law" mentioned above, but to assert the act of driving as allowable or not allowable by government because of its legal status as nothing more than a "privilege" is legal illiteracy at best, and brain-dead belief in indoctrination that teaches otherwise well-meaning men and women that they have the authority to trample on any rights of The People at worst. All too often, it is the worst choice that is the case.
So even though I found many cites that are unreliable for one reason or another, on the question of driving being a privilege rather than a right, I'm gonna stick with what I said before. Andey, you're so full of crap. And if you contend that you're not, then show us your arsenal of flintlocks to prove that modern modes of exercising your rights are not allowed because the Framers never contemplated them ever existing.
And one last thing - Do your own research. If you spew a bunch of crap from your "How To Be an Effective Jack Booted Thug" textbook, or some other policy manual, or anything that doesn't show you seeking and finding the cites you're relying on and giving your own understanding in your own words about what they mean, it will be obvious. It will also be dismissed as nothing more than further evidence of your complete indoctrination opposing the rights that citizens of this country possess over and above your legal authority to trample upon them.
Blues
As I went looking for the cites I've seen on the subject, I found that many of them are either misrepresented, misconstrued, cited incorrectly for the information the person citing it was attempting to convey, and I also found at least one purported SCOTUS citation that cannot be found with the names given on Findlaw, Justia or Cornell (LII). So you guys posting citations about the right to drive, or the right to be free from licensing etc., need to do some more homework. Most of the cites that I followed from posts on this forum were bogus for what they purported to demonstrate. I said "Most," not "all."
I am only addressing the "right" vs. "privilege" to drive on public roads and highways here. I am not addressing licensing, registration, toll roads, insurance mandates, "rules of the road" regulation or any other side-issue that might arise from finding a *right* to drive as a valid concept.
The right to travel goes back as far as the Magna Carta. A SCOTUS Opinion in Kent v. Dulles states that thusly:
The Footnote is a working link to the Magna Carta cite which anyone can check for themselves.
The first line mentions the Fifth Amendment though, so obviously in 1958 SCOTUS was not ruling on common or ancient law. The right to travel is wrapped up in the Declaration of Independence mention of the right of all men to "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The right to travel is well-established as a fundamental right of all human beings throughout this country's history, and while typically court rulings are concerning interstate and international travel, the right to travel has never been in question by any court, no matter the mode of travel. Driving a vehicle is a "mode" of travel.
Anyone asserting that driving is a privilege simply by virtue of it being a modern mode of travel would have to likewise say that the ownership of a revolver is a privilege by virtue of flintlocks being what the 2A was meant to protect. Conversely, anyone who asserts that revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions or semi-auto pistols and rifles are a natural progression from the flintlocks of the founding era days would have to likewise understand that motor-driven vehicles are a natural progression from the horse and buggy, and are every bit as much protected as a right to use as a conveyance to travel as modern weapons are in the right to keep and bear.
Before someone jumps to tell me I'm wrong because Kent was about a passport denial, save it. What I quoted is about travel, described as a right by SCOTUS, the denial of which was prohibited in the Opinion by the 5th Amendment. None of that paragraph is limited in scope to the particular case being heard. It was a general observation by the Court of a natural right going at least as far back in common law as the Magna Carta, used as the underlying foundation of its ruling in prohibiting the Secretary of State from denying a passport to a citizen on the basis of their political beliefs, and further underpinned that natural right with the articulated protections under the 5th Amendment. The right to travel is not modified or otherwise made invalid by the details of issues being resolved in Kent. The right to travel simply is.
Another case, this time Shachtman vs. Dulles (yes, the same Dulles - he obviously had hard time staying out of court). That Court found, among other things:
There is no basis under which someone could claim now that the courts have held that travel is anything approaching a "privilege," no matter the mode of travel as the phrase, "as the means of transportation permit" proves, unless of course you have cites to rulings or opinions that supersede or otherwise overrule just these two that I have provided. There are others too, BTW.
One can argue the legalities of, constitutionality of, or prudence of DUI checkpoints in light of the "reasonable regulation under law" mentioned above, but to assert the act of driving as allowable or not allowable by government because of its legal status as nothing more than a "privilege" is legal illiteracy at best, and brain-dead belief in indoctrination that teaches otherwise well-meaning men and women that they have the authority to trample on any rights of The People at worst. All too often, it is the worst choice that is the case.
So even though I found many cites that are unreliable for one reason or another, on the question of driving being a privilege rather than a right, I'm gonna stick with what I said before. Andey, you're so full of crap. And if you contend that you're not, then show us your arsenal of flintlocks to prove that modern modes of exercising your rights are not allowed because the Framers never contemplated them ever existing.
And one last thing - Do your own research. If you spew a bunch of crap from your "How To Be an Effective Jack Booted Thug" textbook, or some other policy manual, or anything that doesn't show you seeking and finding the cites you're relying on and giving your own understanding in your own words about what they mean, it will be obvious. It will also be dismissed as nothing more than further evidence of your complete indoctrination opposing the rights that citizens of this country possess over and above your legal authority to trample upon them.
Blues
